Let he who is without cognitive bias cast the first lecture.

[guillaumeb]

I read an interesting sermon this morning on the subject of cognitive bias.

The one giving the sermon, or the lecture if any prefers, claims with zero evidence that the impulse to religion arises from the reptile brain. And that baseless claim is itself an interesting display of something, but it hardly qualifies as evidence of anything other than the cognitive bias of the one preaching, or lecturing.


And often I read pieces claiming that non-theism is the more logical position on the theism versus non-theism debate.

Again, another instance of cognitive bias on the part of anyone making the point, but hardly proof of anything other than humans do suffer from cognitive bias in many ways.

The impulse to spirituality, which evolved, so to speak, into more formalized things such as religion, is one that has been with us probably since we evolved enough sentience to think abstractly.


While our brains can use logic, we cannot remove emotion from our thinking.

[KPN]

1. True. eom

[Turbineguy]

2. Everybody has them.

Last edited Wed Dec 26, 2018, 04:57 PM - Edit history (2)

But some are good, others, not so much.

As for theism, I refer to Pascal's Wager.

There's a pretty good, often updated Wikipedia page on the subject. I talk about cognitive biases in my management classes because these biases often cause people to take the wrong course of action. I was first introduced to cognitive bias by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky in their book "Choices, Values, and Frames".

[guillaumeb]

6. Understood.

But it can be difficult for some to recognize that, even when they feel that they are thinking about something in a purely rational way, that is an illusion. We are a combination of ration and emotion.

[MineralMan]

3. No, Guillaumeb. Cognitive biases and emotional decisions

are not centered in the "lizard brain," which is pretty much purely reactive to stimuli. Instead, they are centered in the limbic system, which deals with our emotional responses and learned habitual behaviors.

We all are affected by cognitive biases. Recognizing that fact is an important step in knowing those tendencies and shifting our thinking to the cerebral cortex, which is more capable of rational thinking based on evidence.

We all have emotions, but we can also choose to switch to rational thinking instead of relying only on emotional responses to make important decisions.

Good luck with your endeavors. I have a lot of thinking to do right now about how best to handle a difficult situation with regard to my parents and their end of life needs. The decisions that I need to make are not ones that should be based on my emotional responses. Instead, they need careful consideration and planning.

So, as I said in another post, I have no time to spend bantering about nonsense with you today, nor will I in the near future.

However, if you'd like to learn more about neuroscience as it applies to marketing, you can read my book. Or not, as you choose:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07DY6T6WG

While still not complete, there is this information on cognitive biases, again as they relate to marketing, on a website I have written for the company I am part of. More pages will be added shortly to this section of the website:

https://www.neuromarketingservices.com/cognitive-biases/

Now, Sir, Good Day to You!

[Major Nikon]

8. I don't think you understand what he's trying to say

What Gil is saying is that everyone departs from reason. Therefore all such departures are equal and self-cancelling. Someone who claims god resides in a spaceship hidden by the Hale–Bopp comet is no less relevant than someone who calls bullshit on that claim because neither can be proven.

At least that's what I got out of all the argle-bargle. For all we know it could actually be a metaphor for something that actually makes the least bit of sense.

[MineralMan]

12. Oh, no, I understand what he's trying to say just fine.

I think he's wrong, though. I also think he doesn't have all the information about cognitive biases that he might have. I don't think there's much on those subjects at religionnews.com.

[Major Nikon]

14. I'm not sure his research is limited to just that one site

[MineralMan]

16. Well, there are also random blogs on Patheos.

Who writes for Patheos and religionnews.com? Pretty much anyone who wants to. I have an author account at religionnews.com. I have not contributed anything there. I just wanted to see what was involved in establishing such an account. They were very happy with my application and encouraged me to contribute.

[Major Nikon]

4. So what is your logical argument for theism?

The answer has the potential to be interesting, but since you never provide a straight answer to a relevant question I suppose one must just have faith you actually have an answer to your implication.

[guillaumeb]

5. My argument,

as I have stated many times, is that my belief is faith based.

And I recognize the unprovable nature of my faith.

Now, what is your logical argument for your own, equally unprovable position regarding atheism?

[Major Nikon]

7. You didn't understand the question

First of all what you do or don't believe isn't actually all that clear since you have claimed to be both a deist and a theist which are mutually contradictory terms.

Next, what you do or don't believe is irrelevant. What I'm asking for is a logical argument for theism, not an emotional one for whatever it is you believe or don't.

Finally, your assumption on what I can or can't prove regarding atheism is obviously from a position of ignorance at best or at worst duplicitous.

[guillaumeb]

9. I removed the ad hominem from your response,

and was left with the fact that you misunderstood what I said.

There is no logical or provable argument for atheism or theism. And that is actually what I said so I cannot understand how exactly you did not see that.

I understand your need to feel that your own position is somehow the only logical one, but holding an unprovable position cannot in any way be called logical.

[Major Nikon]

10. Sure, because calling bullshit on bullshit is ad hominem

Argie-bargie.

Meanwhile all you've managed to prove is you have no clue what atheism is, as if everyone hasn't already figured that out.

[guillaumeb]

11. Reverting to your default setting?

That might be why you find no dialogue with theists here.

Your own position, or belief, is unprovable. Atheism, like theism, is unprovable. Perhaps cognitive bias is preventing some from realizing that.

[Major Nikon]

13. Your first fuckup is claiming that I don't find dialog with theists here

I've been here longer than you and do so from time to time. I don't find dialog with those who refuse to engage in it and instead substitute half-fast allegations and nonsense. So far the realm of theists who fall into that category number exactly one. I'll leave it to your imagination to figure out who that is.

Your second fuckup is the assumption of what my position is or isn't. You don't know and obviously don't care to know and instead pretend you know in order to manufacture strawman bullshit.

Your third fuckup is the insistence that atheism is something that it's not.

I'm pretty sure cognitive bias explains your fuckups, or at least I hope it does as the alternatives aren't as favorable.

[guillaumeb]

15. OK.

Do you have cognitive bias?

[MineralMan]

17. Just one cognitive bias?

Last I looked there are about 40 identified cognitive biases. Some are related to others. You should really look into it. Really.

[guillaumeb]

18. The word one was your addition.

So was your addition of the word one an unconscious decision on your part?

Or a conscious decision?

[MineralMan]

20. You wrote:

"Do you have cognitive bias?" Singular. You did not write "Do you have cognitive biases?" Plural.

Try arguing with someone who does not understand English. You'll do better, I'm sure.

[guillaumeb]

22. Cognitive bias describes behavior.

Perhaps you need to understand that.

This might help you:

A cognitive bias is a mistake in reasoning, evaluating, remembering, or other cognitive process, often occurring as a result of holding onto one's preferences and beliefs regardless of contrary information. Psychologists study cognitive biases as they relate to memory, reasoning, and decision-making. Many kinds of cognitive biases exist. For example, a confirmation bias is the tendency to seek only information that matches what one already believes. Memory biases influence what and how easily one remembers. For example, people are more likely to recall events they find humorous and better remember information they produce themselves. People are also more likely to regard as accurate memories associated with significant events or emotions (such as the memory of what one was doing when a catastrophe occurred).

https://www.chegg.com/homework-help/definitions/cognitive-bias-13

Note the use of the singular construction, which I highlighted for your convenience.

[MineralMan]

23. Read the article.

Your boldfaced words include the word "A." That sentence describes what "A cognitive bias" is. In the third sentence, you would have read this, if you read the entire paragraph: "Many kinds of cognitive biases exist."

You did not include an article or quantifier in the statement you wrote, and you used the singular form, "bias." "Do you have cognitive bias." Without the article, the sentence is actually ungrammatical. I supplied the missing article by using the word "one" in my question.

You really don't understand, do you? Your sentence was in error. I clarified it.

[guillaumeb]

24. Did you read the link?

Did you read the title of the article?

One assumes not, or you would have seen that the title of the article was "Cognitive bias", singular.

[MineralMan]

25. Goodbye.

Go read my book.

[guillaumeb]

31. Goodbye.

Always best to click on the link before responding.

[Lordquinton]

41. He clearly read the link

and responded with an appropriate rebuttal.

One can easily conclude that you did not read your own link... Again... because it fully undermines your own position.

[guillaumeb]

47. Neither of you did, in my opinion.

Here, again, is the article:

Cognitive Bias
A cognitive bias is a mistake in reasoning, evaluating, remembering, or other cognitive process, often occurring as a result of holding onto one's preferences and beliefs regardless of contrary information. Psychologists study cognitive biases as they relate to memory, reasoning, and decision-making. Many kinds of cognitive biases exist. For example, a confirmation bias is the tendency to seek only information that matches what one already believes. Memory biases influence what and how easily one remembers. For example, people are more likely to recall events they find humorous and better remember information they produce themselves. People are also more likely to regard as accurate memories associated with significant events or emotions (such as the memory of what one was doing when a catastrophe occurred).

See more Psychology topics

Note the actual title. I bolded it for both of you.

[Lordquinton]

62. So you read the article too, right?

Past the title?

Cognitive Bias
A cognitive bias is a mistake in reasoning, evaluating, remembering, or other cognitive process, often occurring as a result of holding onto one's preferences and beliefs regardless of contrary information. Psychologists study cognitive biases as they relate to memory, reasoning, and decision-making. Many kinds of cognitive biases exist. For example, a confirmation bias is the tendency to seek only information that matches what one already believes. Memory biases influence what and how easily one remembers. For example, people are more likely to recall events they find humorous and better remember information they produce themselves. People are also more likely to regard as accurate memories associated with significant events or emotions (such as the memory of what one was doing when a catastrophe occurred).

Note the part I bolded, and like every sentence after that introducing a couple different kinds of biases, which was the whole point of MM's response to you.

[guillaumeb]

64. No, his "point" was to accuse me of making an error by referrign to it in the singular.

[Lordquinton]

67. And he was not incorrect, was he?

You are intentionally using a broad category to discredit others and claim victory. It's clearly not working.

[guillaumeb]

68. He was incorrect.

The title uses the singular to indicate a condition. MM was incorrect, as the link shows.

And actually MM was the first to use the term to discredit theists.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218301931

Sorry, but the threads contradict your attempt at defense. And it is clearly not working.

[Lordquinton]

70. "Cognitive Biases or Errors Are at the Heart of Religion"

You didn't even read the title on that one, did you?

[Major Nikon]

69. ...

[Major Nikon]

19. One reason you complain about the lack of dialog...

Is because you’re always demanding answers to questions while never providing any. Then when someone calls bullshit on your antithesis to dialog you pretend to be a victim.

[guillaumeb]

21. I provided an answer.

The same answer I have previously given.

But if you are the one to define what constitutes an acceptable answer, I understand. But my answer, that I have faith, is my answer. Science, as I have repeatedly stated, is not a factor. Nor is science a factor in making an assertion that there is no evidence for the existence of a deity.

[Major Nikon]

27. OK, so "faith" is your idea of a logical argument

Got it. Funny as shit, but if you really want to go there don’t let me be the one to stop you.

[guillaumeb]

34. Not at all what I actually said.

But feel free to attack that person of straw.

[Major Nikon]

37. Please continue as this just keeps getting better

1)I asked for your logical argument for theism.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=302000

2) You gave “faith” as an answer.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=302001

3) You further insisted “faith” was your answer.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=302023

4) Now what you said twice is not what you said.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=302038

[guillaumeb]

43. Incorrect on your part.

And if I felt it would serve as an opportunity for dialogue, I would suggest looking for the error on your part.

[Major Nikon]

48. Please continue...

[guillaumeb]

49. Sad.

But I understand. Cultivate your gif(t) as you continue to mis-frame.

[Major Nikon]

51. Please continue to say you didn't say what you said

1)I asked for your logical argument for theism.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=302000

2) You gave “faith” as an answer.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=302001

3) You further insisted “faith” was your answer.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=302023

4) Now what you said twice is not what you said.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=302038

[violetpastille]

26. Logical

Logic is great. Logic makes the trains run on time. Logic made time. Logic made trains. Logic makes weapons and logic makes modern wars. Logic creates ecological catastrophe and logic is busy trying out-logic those catastrophes. And logic made "religion".

I've read Richard Dawkins. I've read Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris. Their arguments were sensible. They were logical. They were rational. They made good sense.

Yet I still believe in God.

I don't think anybody ever had a spiritual experience hacking away on a laptop.
Most people get it in nature.
Some feel the nature of God when they care for another being without thought of recompense.

One needn't call it God. But one needn't call it a cognitive bias, either.

[wasupaloopa]

29. What is a spiritual experience?

[violetpastille]

30. Here was mine

And it's pretty typical.

I grew up with beauty and nature - beauty and nature all around me and ugly and petty and addicted human behavior all around me.

I knew that there was a disconnect. If adults just stopped what they were doing and played in the woods instead of drinking and fighting and watching television and having intrigues and trying to be smarter than each other everyone would be much better off.

So first I was open to the possibility of the mysterious. The ineffable. That's the first part of the show. The intro.
You know that there is a benevolent force in the world because the world is beautiful. If there were no more than simply the miracle of creation that would be enough. That the universe is abundant.

On a nothing different, particularly beautiful day I went into the woods and met a particularly beautiful ancient redwood.
I felt the life force vibrating from the tree as though it were speaking to me. Without words.
I put my arms around the tree and felt at one with the tree, with the earth with the past and the future.

Other people experience the interconnectedness of everything in different ways. At different times. Some people experience it as their constant state of being.

I don't feel that way in church. Halfway through I get impatient and want to talk about what we can actually do in the world to be more Christlike and then do it together as a group.
Sitting together and proclaiming superiority over those not present may be "religion" but for me it's too far removed from God. Not my thing.

It's easy to think of interconnectedness when you are a child in a beautiful wood. It's more of a trick when you're an adult getting hassled by the cops or struggling to pay the bills, but once you've felt it, you kind of always know the way back.

[guillaumeb]

35. Church services provide a community.

DU provides a virtual community of sorts.

Humans need that community, but as you pointed out, actions are also important.

[violetpastille]

36. Humans need community.

True and true and true.

[guillaumeb]

32. Very well put.

But some on both sides feel that their choices are the best ones. And the logical ones. And so they feel compelled at times to point out to those whose choices differ that the difference must be due to a fault of intellect.

A very human failing.

[Major Nikon]

38. Tell us again how "faith" is your logical argument

Because that shit was funny as hell.

[guillaumeb]

44. You are misframing what I said.

2 possibilities:

1) You misunderstand, or

2) you do not.

Either way, what you claim that I have written is unsupported by what I wrote.

[Major Nikon]

50. Thanks for giving me another opportunity to prove your faceplant

1)I asked for your logical argument for theism.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=302000

2) You gave “faith” as an answer.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=302001

3) You further insisted “faith” was your answer.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=302023

4) Now what you said twice is not what you said.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=302038

[guillaumeb]

52. Unintentional humor on your part.

[Major Nikon]

59. Thanks for the unintentional laugh

1)I asked for your logical argument for theism.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=302000

2) You gave “faith” as an answer.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=302001

3) You further insisted “faith” was your answer.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=302023

4) Now what you said twice is not what you said.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=302038

[Lordquinton]

42. "I don't think anybody ever had a spiritual experience hacking away on a laptop. "

Why do you think that?

[violetpastille]

63. If the Buddha, or Jesus or Mohammed

Last edited Thu Dec 27, 2018, 12:30 AM - Edit history (1)

had their first spiritual awakenings in the marketplace or the synagogue or the mosque they as teachers would have pointed it out for sure.

It seems like they had to get away from the hubbub and sit in a cave or wander the desert or sit under a tree and be very quiet...and then it happens.

After they are fully enlightened a person can have spiritual experiences in all kinds of Seussian locales.. They would always be in that place of oneness.

But would they be hacking away on that laptop? Arguing on message boards?

A lot of "holy men" seem like multi-level marketers. I give the Dalai Lama a wide berth for instance.
He's probably working on his laptop right now. Setting up some speaking deals.

ETA: Add to that, "Pope Your Name Here".

[Voltaire2]

71. I can attest that many actual "hackers"

as in people who code as an avocation, have had transcendental experiences while coding.

Luther had a transcendental experience taking a shit.

Your limits on the transcendent are self imposed.

[violetpastille]

72. I said "I don't think that"

Not "I know that."

Nearly everyday I find something I was taught in school is no longer true. I was told never to give my baby peanut products. Now that she is in school with a bunch of kids with deathly peanut allergies new parents are being told to give babies peanut butter as soon as possible.
Even facts change.
What can I know with certainty? What authority can I hand over my trust? The more I "know" the more I know I don't know.

I experience that the world exists. That it is a beautiful world. That the creator and the created are not two separate things. That I can't hurt you without hurting myself.

If I were enlightened I could always be in that place of oneness and not have to work so hard against economic and technological exigencies to stay there.
Technology does not get me there.
(I'll let others to their otherness.)


I had to Google to find out about Luther coming up with the Reformation whilst straining on the toilet. He was constipated a lot and from the links I read he was really into the excrement metaphors. “I’m like a ripe stool and the world is like a gigantic anus.”
Jeepers, do you kiss your mom with that mouth, Martin Luther?
Lots of farting in the Devil's general direction and etc.

But good for him calling BS on priestly celibacy and paying for indulgences. That is a load of crap.

At the end of Einstein's God Letter he says, (I paraphrase) "Whatever. Even though you totally believe this stuff and I totally don't, I still believe we could be friends as long as we talk about concrete matters."

Unfortunately...

My neighbors all go to the same prosperity gospel church and they do everything they can to make us unwelcome. They leave their stuff all over the street and let their dogs run in the street and poop on our grass and blame it on other peoples (leashed) dogs. They let days go by before they bring in their garbage cans. Their kids tell my kid she's going to hell. They have about three cars per person that they can't park in their garages because that's where the Christmas decorations go. It's their own little Dominion.

I don't feel very "interconnected" on these occasions. No poops nor code strings seem to help. I need to go into nature and pray.


We could use another Reformation. imho. And a better HOA.

[wasupaloopa]

28. You cannot prove a negative so your question to athiests is irrational.

Atheists do not have to prove there isn't a god. You have to prove there is one. If it wasn't for people who say there is a god, there would be no need for the term atheist, because there would not be anything to not believe in.

You cannot go around saying there is a hoochit, and I have faith in hoochits and believe in the existance of hoochits. Now someone prove there are no hoochits.

[guillaumeb]

33. I never talk about proof. I talk about faith.

But if any person claims that there is no proof of the existence of the Creator, that tells me nothing about the Creator and everything about the claimant.

[Major Nikon]

39. Meanwhile you reveal you can't tell the difference between a fact and a claim

Which leads to all sorts of fallacies like “faith” is somehow a logical argument for anything.

[guillaumeb]

45. And you continue to reveal your agenda, and tactics.

And that is your right.

[Major Nikon]

53. True

1)I asked for your logical argument for theism.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=302000

2) You gave “faith” as an answer.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=302001

3) You further insisted “faith” was your answer.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=302023

4) Now what you said twice is not what you said.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=302038

[guillaumeb]

54. The first citation reveals that you misframed my response.

No need to go any further. And THIS mis-framing explains why there can be no dialogue with some here.

[Major Nikon]

60. Please continue to claim that

1)I asked for your logical argument for theism.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=302000

2) You gave “faith” as an answer.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=302001

3) You further insisted “faith” was your answer.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=302023

4) Now what you said twice is not what you said.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=302038

[wasupaloopa]

40. That makes no sense. You base it all on your belief

that you take on faith. You can’t make a statement about a person using your faith as the basis if you mean it as rational.

[guillaumeb]

46. I have faith.

What I said, and have said, is that my faith is not based on anything provable.

[Eko]

55. I find it interesting that you always focus on the unprovable

instead of the provable. Actually I don't, it explains tons about you.

[guillaumeb]

56. What an interesting response.

Incorrect, as any review of the many things that I post here will clearly prove, but interesting.

[Eko]

57. Here.

"And I recognize the unprovable nature of my faith.

Now, what is your logical argument for your own, equally unprovable position regarding atheism?"

I am an atheist not because it is unprovable that god exists, I am an atheist because no one has been able to prove that he exists. You believe in something that you know is unprovable, I dont believe in something because it has not been proven.

[guillaumeb]

58. Okay.

[Eko]

61. Great.

Now you can quit saying that atheism is an equally unprovable position.

[Major Nikon]

65. He won't

Gil is fully predictable. Soon he’ll be in another thread spewing the same nonsense that atheism is an unproven position and therefore no more logical than the claim of an invisible sky daddy.

[Eko]

66. I know.